canon rumors FORUM

Forgive my ignorance here, but can this issue just cause unexplainable oof images? I've been shooting a lot with the 24-70 lately, and it is perfectly afma'd, but often I aim at something and it just won't focus properly. This sounds nooby, but it's not "the occasional oof iimage" I just doesn't focus right, and not in front or behind, it feels like it just doesn't even try to get it right.

Forgive my ignorance here, but can this issue just cause unexplainable oof images? I've been shooting a lot with the 24-70 lately, and it is perfectly afma'd, but often I aim at something and it just won't focus properly. This sounds nooby, but it's not "the occasional oof iimage" I just doesn't focus right, and not in front or behind, it feels like it just doesn't even try to get it right.

And it's been worse lately. And VERY annoying.

From Canon USA:

PhenomenaIn some units of the models listed below, there is a possibility that the following phenomena may occur due to wear caused by insufficient lubrication within the camera’s driving mechanism.

1. AF searches but does not lock in on the subject. (Caused by minute particles produced by wear mentioned above.) 2. The image shown in the viewfinder is “blurry” or “not steady”. (Occurs if wear progresses.)

Forgive my ignorance here, but can this issue just cause unexplainable oof images? I've been shooting a lot with the 24-70 lately, and it is perfectly afma'd, but often I aim at something and it just won't focus properly. This sounds nooby, but it's not "the occasional oof iimage" I just doesn't focus right, and not in front or behind, it feels like it just doesn't even try to get it right.

And it's been worse lately. And VERY annoying.

From Canon USA:

PhenomenaIn some units of the models listed below, there is a possibility that the following phenomena may occur due to wear caused by insufficient lubrication within the camera’s driving mechanism.

1. AF searches but does not lock in on the subject. (Caused by minute particles produced by wear mentioned above.) 2. The image shown in the viewfinder is “blurry” or “not steady”. (Occurs if wear progresses.)

Yeah, I know, but that, to me, means that the camera says (by the blinking dot) that it can't focus. Mine doesn't do that, everything seems like it has focused, and the blur in the VF isn't enough to tell straight away that it's oof. It's only the reviewed image that tells me that it's oof.

Forgive my ignorance here, but can this issue just cause unexplainable oof images? I've been shooting a lot with the 24-70 lately, and it is perfectly afma'd, but often I aim at something and it just won't focus properly. This sounds nooby, but it's not "the occasional oof iimage" I just doesn't focus right, and not in front or behind, it feels like it just doesn't even try to get it right.

How was it "perfectly afma'd?" What you describe (neither front- nor back-focus but still a soft image) sounds like a problem with the lens, e.g. decentering. What do shots taken with Live View AF look like?

Forgive my ignorance here, but can this issue just cause unexplainable oof images? I've been shooting a lot with the 24-70 lately, and it is perfectly afma'd, but often I aim at something and it just won't focus properly. This sounds nooby, but it's not "the occasional oof iimage" I just doesn't focus right, and not in front or behind, it feels like it just doesn't even try to get it right.

How was it "perfectly afma'd?" What you describe (neither front- nor back-focus but still a soft image) sounds like a problem with the lens, e.g. decentering. What do shots taken with Live View AF look like?

I used Reikan and tested nearly 2000 images, plus that I have afma'd all my other lenses over the past 5-6 years to hit dead on, and the 24-70 also hits dead on most of the time, equally sharp on both edges and top to bottom, EXCATLY the same sharpness with LV and phase.

And I might have put that a bit wrong, because when it's oof, it must be either back or front, but it's off by 2 meters at 2 meters so it's nothing to do with afma, it misses by (nearly)the same distance I shoot often. But it's the ones that are far enough off that the images is completely useless and not by so much it shows in VF or the dot blinks telling me it can't find focuses that are causing me the issues.

Here's just a on the fly typical missed shot. The point is on his head.

Usually they look like this:

ps, I know the light is QUITE different, but the problem is random at any type of light.

Logged

1dx mkII, 35 L II, 200 f2.0 L, Broncolor Siros 800 L.

canon rumors FORUM

Well, it's a bit hard to be certain since I'm viewing on my iPhone, but it looks like the first one 'hit' better on the play tent opening. Not sure if you're aware, but the actual AF points are larger that the little box that represents them in the VF. So, you could put the box on his face, but the real AF point extends up outside the box and catches the rolled up 'door' of the tent, and that what it locks onto.

Well, it's a bit hard to be certain since I'm viewing on my iPhone, but it looks like the first one 'hit' better on the play tent opening. Not sure if you're aware, but the actual AF points are larger that the little box that represents them in the VF. So, you could put the box on his face, but the real AF point extends up outside the box and catches the rolled up 'door' of the tent, and that what it locks onto.

Yeah, that image wasn't the best example I guess. I'm aware of the point being larger, but this issue has appeared lately, and can happen with any subject... I can shoot a checkerboard in bright light and it would suddenly be oof.

I guess I'll try to send my camera in if people get them back without splattering, and see if that solves the problem.

I saw the issue with the "Af Consistency" test in Focal also. Out of 20 points I had two that were completely off and the other between 2700 and 2670, for example. And that hasn't happened before.

Does anyone here actually own or know of a body that is NOT potentially affected?

If every camera with serial numbers ranging from 1-7 require inspection, it's safe to assume that a lot of bodies are affected, but lately I've been thinking that it's in the realm of possibility that the digit in question will always be in the 1-7 range... After all, the first part of the serial number is presumably some sort of date/production code.

What I'm trying to say is, perhaps Canon didn't want to announce that every single body produced (or the vast majority) is potentially affected, so they worded the advisory like that.

Does anyone here actually own or know of a body that is NOT potentially affected?

If every camera with serial numbers ranging from 1-7 require inspection, it's safe to assume that a lot of bodies are affected, but lately I've been thinking that it's in the realm of possibility that the digit in question will always be in the 1-7 range... After all, the first part of the serial number is presumably some sort of date/production code.

What I'm trying to say is, perhaps Canon didn't want to announce that every single body produced (or the vast majority) is potentially affected, so they worded the advisory like that.

Most likely they just discovered it, units that just rolled off the line were pulled, fixed and marked. But they're using standard wording for a product advisory, since even after units with post-affected serial numbers are produced, older ones will still be in retailers' stock, units will be sold used years from now, etc.

canon rumors FORUM

I am from Montreal, Canada and CPS - plat. member approx. 40k shots on 1dx. I had several issues for fuzzy photos. 2 months ago I actually asked for support to Canon Canada...and told me that it's because I use lenses likes 50L and Sigma 35mm! I was not able to reproduce the issues with 24-70 but just recently at a baptism I ran into a photo with an issue and now I've been exchanging emails with Canon Canada but they asked me to wait as the product advisory is still not issued in Canada(what a bummer!)

So yes...I never thought this would be the issue but hey..it's possible!